Correlation of Orion Belt Stars and Giza Pyramids
Rodney Small
William Hamblen wrote:
>> From: Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com>
>>The
>> question is what is the azimuth of the three Orion belt stars relative
>>to
>> each other in the two different eras, as compared to the relative
>> azimuths of the three Giza pyramids. The latter I know. The center
>>of
>> the Chephren (Khafra) pyramid has an azimuth of 223 degrees, 17
>>minutes,
>> and 52 seconds relative to the center of the Cheops (Khufu) pyramid;
>>and
>> the center of the Mycerinus (Menkaura) pyramid has an azimuth of 217
>> degrees, 46 minutes, and 6 seconds relative to the center of the
>>Cheops
>> pyramid (which is to say the center of the Mycerinus pyramid has an
>> azimuth of 214 degrees, 5 minutes, and 11 seconds relative to the
>>center
>> of the Chephren pyramid). Does anyone have the relative azimuths for
>>the
>> Orion belt stars in 10,500 BC and 2600 BC? Thanks.
>Here's positions and proper motions of the stars in question (epoch
>J2000.0)
>from the 3rd edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue:
>ra 5h 32m 1s, dec -0 deg 18', apm ra +0.009, apm dec -0.003
>ra 5h 36m 12s, dec -1 deg 12', apm ra +0.000, apm dec +0.000
>ra 5h 40m 46s, dec -1 deg 57', apm ra +0.004, apm dec -0.002
>ra = right acsension, dec = declination, apm = annual proper motion
>in seconds of arc.
>You figure it out and let us know.
Thanks for the information, but I'm having a difficult time calculating
the exact azimuths. However, because the proper motion for all three
stars is so small, I would guess the azimuths were almost the same in
both eras. Perhaps there is someone else on one of these boards who has
more expertise in doing such calculations? Thanks.
Stephen Tonkin
Rodney Small <rsm...@erols.com> writes
>>Here's positions and proper motions of the stars in question (epoch
>>J2000.0)
>>from the 3rd edition of the Yale Bright Star Catalogue:
>>ra 5h 32m 1s, dec -0 deg 18', apm ra +0.009, apm dec -0.003
>>ra 5h 36m 12s, dec -1 deg 12', apm ra +0.000, apm dec +0.000
>>ra 5h 40m 46s, dec -1 deg 57', apm ra +0.004, apm dec -0.002
>
>>ra = right acsension, dec = declination, apm = annual proper motion
>>in seconds of arc.
>
>>You figure it out and let us know.
>
>Thanks for the information, but I'm having a difficult time calculating
>the exact azimuths. However, because the proper motion for all three
>stars is so small, I would guess the azimuths were almost the same in
>both eras.
Well, an apm of 0.009 arcsec comes out at over 1.5 arcmin if you take it
back to the tenth millenium BCE.
I guess whether this is small depends upon what accuracy of alignment of
the pyramids is being claimed. A 'loose' accuracy could leave a
situation where the alignment of the pyramids is just as likely to be
random, in the same way that a random distribution of points on a map
will produce "ley-lines" of the same accuracy of alignment as the ley
lines that are claimed to exist.
If, as pyramidologists claim, the pyramid builders were capable of
tremendous accuracy, the small proper motion of these stars may well be
significant.
--
Stephen Tonkin <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
Stephen Tonkin
Richard Flavin <Twis...@gnn.com> writes
>Didn't Otto Neugebauer address this in "On the Orientation of
>Pyramids," CENTAURUS 1980: vol 24: pp. 1-3, reprinted in ASTRONOMY
>AND HISTORY: SELECTED ESSAYS, Springer-Verlag 1983, pp. 211-213?
I presume from the precision of your "question" that he did.
Instead of pretending to ask a question, why don't you tell us what he
concluded and his reasoning behind it?
Clear Skies,
Steve <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
@#$%!?!
Given the number of stars, it would be difficult not to find
a fit somewhere in the sky. It would be more compelling if
you could show a priori why they were designed to fit some
stars, rather than say hey a match, this must mean something.
--
In mirrored maze he met the Mother, | smr...@netcom.com PO Box 1563
the lost and breathless, lonely brother. | Cupertino, California
Both crone and child, now crying wild, | (xxx)xxx-xxxx 95015
her clinging clay will clothe and smother. | I don't use no smileys
Stan
@#$%!?! wrote:
[stuff about the pyramids and Orion's belt supposedly correlating snipped]
>
> Given the number of stars, it would be difficult not to find
> a fit somewhere in the sky. It would be more compelling if
> you could show a priori why they were designed to fit some
> stars, rather than say hey a match, this must mean something.
Indeed. This is like the 'Pyramidology' crowd that claims that all sorts of
significant numbers are contained in the dimensions and orientation of the
pyramids. As a spoof of this, the Skeptical Inquirer had an article in which
the author used various dimensions from his bicycle to show that it contained
all the knowledge of the universe.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Schwarz | "I just want to live like Yogi Bear
st...@bombay.gps.caltech.edu | He kicks ass on the average bear."
---------------------------------------------------- -Stukas Over Bedrock -----
Gary Marriott
There is a book out titles I think The Orion Mystery that gives more motiation
for these Ideas.
The alignments claimed are not just for the three main pyramids but for two
others, a main city of the era, and the path of the nile of the time. All these
appear to represent the three belt stars in orion, two of the outlying stars of
the same, Sirius and the path of the milky way Isophotes. See Below.
\ / *
\ /
\ /
\ / *
\ / * *
\ /
\ /
\ / *
\ /
\ / *
I'm still not convinced. But in the book the alignments and the motivations
theorised behind them do make predictions. One of which is that there should be
a chamber located benith the Sphinx (at the culmination of a precessional
journey of a new king). Sisemic studies done some time ago that layed
unregarded until they were serched for by the author after his prediction was
made public, show this to be very likely.
Sorry if this is a little off subject but contreversy and a fresh eye is
sometimes usefull to any science. Especially a rather costepated one like
Egyptology.
--
----------------------------------------
| ga...@garym.demon.co.uk |
| I'm not fat I'm just 99% Dark Matter |
----------------------------------------
Jo Helsen
the great and intrepid smr...@netcom.com (@#$%!?!) wrote:
>Given the number of stars, it would be difficult not to find
>a fit somewhere in the sky. It would be more compelling if
>you could show a priori why they were designed to fit some
>stars, rather than say hey a match, this must mean something.
I saw a documentary about this once. I believe it had something to do with those
stars symbolising certain gods (Osiris ?)in Egyptian culture which were linked
with the pyramids.
"Gravity doesn't exist; the Earth sucks!"
darylb
I saw a show on this and it seemed plausible to me (although I'm still in
a show-me / convince me mode). They also stated that there is a tomb way
up river which lines up with a shoulder if I remember right. They then
went on to say it was related to Sirius (belt forms a crude arrow to
Sirius) which always showed up in time for the flooding of the Nile (it
was this last part which made it seem plausible to me). Sirius is well
known to have been a big part of Egyptian life (back then) since the
annual flooding of the Nile was so bloody important.
Daryl - Ottawa
In article <31EA7DEA...@bombay.gps.caltech.edu>, Stan
<st...@bombay.gps.caltech.edu> wrote:
> @#$%!?! wrote:
> [stuff about the pyramids and Orion's belt supposedly correlating snipped]
> >
> > Given the number of stars, it would be difficult not to find
> > a fit somewhere in the sky. It would be more compelling if
> > you could show a priori why they were designed to fit some
> > stars, rather than say hey a match, this must mean something.
>
> Indeed. This is like the 'Pyramidology' crowd that claims that all sorts of
> significant numbers are contained in the dimensions and orientation of the
> pyramids. As a spoof of this, the Skeptical Inquirer had an article in which
> the author used various dimensions from his bicycle to show that it contained
> all the knowledge of the universe.
>
> --
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Stan Schwarz | "I just want to live like Yogi Bear
> st...@bombay.gps.caltech.edu | He kicks ass on the average bear."
> ---------------------------------------------------- -Stukas Over
Bedrock -----
--
Clouds are high flying fogs.
Sawfish
>the great and intrepid smr...@netcom.com (@#$%!?!) wrote:
>>Given the number of stars, it would be difficult not to find
>>a fit somewhere in the sky. It would be more compelling if
>>you could show a priori why they were designed to fit some
>>stars, rather than say hey a match, this must mean something.
>I saw a documentary about this once. I believe it had something to do with those
>stars symbolising certain gods (Osiris ?)in Egyptian culture which were linked
>with the pyramids.
It would indeed be interesting (and persuasive, too!) to us uninformed
know-nothing lurkers if anyone could suggest just why the particular
stars in question had such significance that the pyramid builders
would want to influence the construction to model/measure these astral
bodies.
It would seem to me that there would be enough independent textual
confirmation from inscriptions that would mention these stars as
having some important associations. This type of information should
have been known to conventional egyptologists for years. Is there any
such definitive independent corrolation?
..and another thing. Clearly, the Egytians who built the pyramids
in question did not conceive of the stars we think of as a part
of Orion's belt as a part of, well, a hero's belt, did they? I mean,
*we* logically group the stars together to imagine a belt. Is there
any indepent textual information that indicates that the Egyptians
viewed these stars as logically grouped? It sorta seems to me like this
would be well-documented in inscriptions, too.
--
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Would someone please tell me what 'diddy-wah-diddy' means?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
darylb
In article <31EB27...@millersqa.com>, bryan leenheer
<blee...@millersqa.com> wrote:
> darylb wrote:
>
> > up river which lines up with a shoulder if I remember right. They then
> > went on to say it was related to Sirius (belt forms a crude arrow to
> > Sirius) which always showed up in time for the flooding of the Nile (it
>
> Funny, that was the part that made it seem like they were reaching to me
>
> All opinions are my own.
No, I know Sirius was important from other sources as when it showed up in
the spring the nile would flood. Otherwise I too would have thought it was
bogus. My problem is I'm not an Egyptologist.
bryan leenheer
darylb wrote:
> up river which lines up with a shoulder if I remember right. They then
> went on to say it was related to Sirius (belt forms a crude arrow to
> Sirius) which always showed up in time for the flooding of the Nile (it
> was this last part which made it seem plausible to me). Sirius is well
> known to have been a big part of Egyptian life (back then) since the
> annual flooding of the Nile was so bloody important.
Funny, that was the part that made it seem like they were reaching to me.
Stephen Tonkin
darylb <dar...@bnr.ca> writes
>Sirius is well
>known to have been a big part of Egyptian life (back then) since the
>annual flooding of the Nile was so bloody important.
Yes, the heliacal rising of Sirius heralded the flooding of the Nile --
few, if any, dispute that. It is also fairly evident that the Ancient
Egyptians had a good knowledge of the night sky.
If the pyramidologists would restrict themselves to that for which there
is evidence, they may be more acceptable, but by resorting to unfounded
conjecture (which sometimes degenerates into such things as alien
agency) they should not be surprised that they are denigrated.
--
Stephen Tonkin <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
bryan leenheer
darylb wrote:
>My problem is I'm not an Egyptologist.
Me either, but the question I have is, do the pyramids line up in the
precise manner that the stars in the sky do? I don't think so. I saw a
"NOVA" program "This Old Pyramid", and I saw the way archaeologists
believe that the egyptians aligned the pyramids in a north/south
alignment: by following the shadow of the sun from dawn to dusk and
bisecting an arc. The way they showed it, I don't think that they could
have taken any real connotation from the stars. After all, the main god
of the Egyptians was Ra, wasn't he?
All opinions are my own.
________________________________________________________________________Hail to the sun god, he sure is a fun god, RA RA RA!
Rob Roy
In article <569013...@garym.demon.co.uk>, Gary Marriott <ga...@garym.demon.co.uk> says:
>
>There is a book out titles I think The Orion Mystery that gives more motiation
>for these Ideas.
>
Hancock and Bauval, provides even more evidence and goes into even more
detail on the alignment of stars and the monuments at Giza. The authors
propose that Giza is a gigantic multi thousand-year clock.
If it is a lot of hocus pocus, then there are an incredible number of exact
coincidences and alignments. If you are the slightest bit interested......
Read it and form your own opinion, of course.
Rob Roy
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
> The alignments claimed are not just for the three main pyramids but for two
But if you check the positions (relative to the Giza pyramids) of these other
2 pyramids and compare them with the positions (relative to Orion's belt)
of the 2 Orion stars they are claimed to represent, anyone can see there's
no correlation whatever.
These 2 pyramids are nowhere near where they should be if any correlation
were intended. Nor do they match with Betelgeuse or Rigel, the other 2 of
the 4 bright stars that frame Orion's belt. This aspect of the argument
simply falls down flat.
On the other hand, the apparent southern shaft alignments with Sirius
and Al Nitak (?) are more compelling, at least for me.
Michael Farthing
In article <miken.837548259@julie> mi...@teleport.com "Sawfish" writes:
>
> It would indeed be interesting (and persuasive, too!) to us uninformed
> know-nothing lurkers if anyone could suggest just why the particular
> stars in question had such significance that the pyramid builders
> would want to influence the construction to model/measure these astral
> bodies.
>
> It would seem to me that there would be enough independent textual
> confirmation from inscriptions that would mention these stars as
> having some important associations. This type of information should
> have been known to conventional egyptologists for years. Is there any
> such definitive independent corrolation?
>
> ..and another thing. Clearly, the Egytians who built the pyramids
> in question did not conceive of the stars we think of as a part
> of Orion's belt as a part of, well, a hero's belt, did they? I mean,
> *we* logically group the stars together to imagine a belt. Is there
> any indepent textual information that indicates that the Egyptians
> viewed these stars as logically grouped? It sorta seems to me like this
> would be well-documented in inscriptions, too.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but I detect a little cynical dismissiveness in this
post. However, taking it at face value there is considerable evidence of
the significance of various stars for the Egyptians. The following passage
is quoted from "Star Names Their Lore and Meaning" by Richard Hinckley Allen
(kindly recommended to me by a regular in sci.astro):
"In Egypt, as everywhere, Orion was of course prominent .. as Horus [God
incarnated as the Pharaoh] in a boat surmounted by stars, followed by
Sirius, shown as a cow, also in a boat; and nearly three thousand years
previously had been sculptured on the walls of the recently discovered
step-temple of Sakkara, and in the great Ramesseum of Thebes about 3285 BC
as Sahu. This twice appears in the Book of the Dead" [Collection of texts
frequently found in graves: called a book for historical reasons]
Square brackets contain my comments. Horus is significant as the Pharaoh
was his incarnation. On death, he would ascend to heaven to become
Osiris, the successor Pharaoh continuing as an incarnation of Horus. The
alignment of the Pyramids, and in particular shafts out of the burial chamber,
are believed to aid the passage of the departing Pharaoh to Osiris.
Sirius was of particular significance because it heralded the arrival of
the flooding of the Nile, and so was perhaps the most important star for
Egyptian astronomers (getting it wrong would definitely cost them the
election, as it were).
Can I also point out that some respondents seem to be demanding 'evidence'
from the originator of the thread. The thread originator in fact asked for
comments on the standing of the theory in academic circles and was not in
any way committed to the theory one way or the other. (nor, incidentally,
am I). However, it is certainly the case that Orion is not a random choice
of stars to concoct a theory. Apart from the fact that it is one of the most
obvious constellation-like constellations, there is plenty of evidence that
it had particular significance for Egyptians, and after all we do actually
know they had given it a name (Sahu).
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
software house
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
In article <31EC87...@millersqa.com>, bryan leenheer <blee...@millersqa.com> writes:
> Gary Marriott wrote:
>
>> theorised behind them do make predictions. One of which is that there should be
>> a chamber located benith the Sphinx (at the culmination of a precessional
>> journey of a new king). Sisemic studies done some time ago that layed
>> unregarded until they were serched for by the author after his prediction was
>> made public, show this to be very likely.
>>
>> Sorry if this is a little off subject but contreversy and a fresh eye is
>> sometimes usefull to any science. Especially a rather costepated one like
>> Egyptology.
>
> testable hypothesis.
>
> But...
>
> Regarding the "chambers beneath the sphinx" idea; that one had been
> floating around for a long time. Edgar Cayce(not sure about the spelling
> of the first name, am sure about the spelling of the last), a "psychic"
> and "channeler" said that the chambers would be discovered by, I
> believe, the year 2000, and the people who bought into this are desperate
> to find some proof of it, as that would vindicate them. Supposedly there
> is a sort of archive of the knowledge of the Atlanteans in this chamber.
> As a matter of fact, right now there is a discussion of it in
> sci.archaeology, and most of the persons who seem to be away from the
> lunatic fringe are saying that it isn't a chamber, it's a tunnel that has
> been known for a long time.
>
> I really don't think that there is a chamber stuffed full of wisdom from
> some sunken continent beneath the sphinx, or even full of documents saved
> from Alexandria, but I'm not ruling out the possibility of the chamber.
> I just want to see the proof.
If there is anything down there, you or I will never see it...
-Garrett
>
> Anybody have a ground-penetrating radar system that they're not using for
> a couple months? We could find out once and for all whether there is a
> chamber there. What do you say, guys?
>
> All opinions are my own, but if they agree with you, feel free to use
> them yourself.
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
In article <31EC62...@millersqa.com>, bryan leenheer <blee...@millersqa.com> writes:
> darylb wrote:
>>My problem is I'm not an Egyptologist.
>
> Me either, but the question I have is, do the pyramids line up in the
> precise manner that the stars in the sky do? I don't think so. I saw a
Umm, stars move around relative to each other, they don't stay fixed.
-G
bryan leenheer
Rob Roy wrote:
--snip--
> If it is a lot of hocus pocus, then there are an incredible number of exact
> coincidences and alignments. If you are the slightest bit interested......
> Read it and form your own opinion, of course.
What were the significant figures? What was the standard deviation? How
many decimal places were there in the measurements?
I will accept it if it is Five Sigma, and there were three significant
figures. That is roughly a 99.92% deviation in the placement of the
pyramids and the stars which are supposed to conform to them. And this
is being generous, considering the time in which the pyramids were built.
Of course, the shaft argument will be considered in the same manner.
All Opinions are my own, and in no way reflect the opinions of my
employer.
Serge Rosmorduc
>>>>> "vancleef" == vancleef <vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>> "NOVA" program "This Old Pyramid", and I saw the way archaeologists
>> believe that the egyptians aligned the pyramids in a north/south
alignment> by following the shadow of the sun from dawn to dusk and
>> bisecting an arc. The way they showed it, I don't think that they
>> could have taken any real connotation from the stars. After all,
>> the main god of the Egyptians was Ra, wasn't he?
Well, the connection of the pyramid SHAFTS with some stars is not
ridiculous from an egyptological point of view. We lack texts from
Kheops'time on the subject, but the Pyramid texts (some of whom are
probably older than the 4th dynasty) present a tripartite view of the
neitherworld :
A solar one,
An osirian one,
and a stelar one.
The stelar texts are mainly concerned with the king becoming one of the
"undying stars", that is the circumpolar stars. The texts are carved on the
northen walls of the funeral chambers, for rather evident reasons. Plus,
the way out of these pyramids are north-oriented. (they also happen to be
the entrances, but the internal logic of the monument is from the dead
king's point of view).
regards,
--
Serge Rosmorduc,
ros...@lifac1.ens-cachan.fr
lifac
ENS de Cachan
61, avenue du Pr\'esident Wilson
94235 Cachan Cedex
tel (16 1) 47 40 24 93
fax (16 1) 47 40 24 64
http://weblifac.ens-cachan.fr/~rosmord/AEgypt.html
Serge Rosmorduc
Well I appologise for a manipulation error. I wrote :
>>>>> "Serge" == Serge Rosmorduc <ros...@khety.iut.univ-paris8.fr> writes:
>>>>> "vancleef" == vancleef <vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>>> "NOVA" program "This Old Pyramid", and I saw the way
but in fact the post I answered had been sent by bryan leenheer
<blee...@millersqa.com>.
Mark Frazier
dt king wrote:
> I just went out with a piece of stretchy kite string and tried it in my
> parking lot. I stepped 12 paces for the length of the string and 39
> paces for a half-circle arcing from one end of a wall to the other.
> That ratio gave me 3.25. That's 3.5% more than pi. I imagine you could
> get pretty good accuracy with only a little more care and a longer piece
> of cotton string. Think I could get a government grant for that?
No, but I'll bet the other residents of your building got a kick out of
watching you... :-)
--
============================================================
Mark Frazier "Train Hard, Eat Healthy, Die Anyway"
Software Engineer/Consultant
mfra...@rmi.net Denver, Colorado, USA
============================================================
MA Lloyd
dt king <dtk...@weblabs.com> writes:
>Ok, I'm confused here. Is the sum of the length of the four sides
>divided by the height equal to pi or do the four corners touch the edge
>of an imaginary circle with a radius equal to the height of the pyramid,
>or is the length of one side the pyramid divided by the height equal to
>pi?
I know the pyramid numerologists work in pi somewhere, so it must by
the first, since in the second case the ratio of the height to a side
of the base would be half the square root of 2. One thing I wonder, why it
it always the perimeter used in these things, is the base actually so
far off being a square they don't want to use the side lengths?
Is the pyramid that steep though, those give slopes of 51.9 and 54.7
degrees.
>I just went out with a piece of stretchy kite string and tried it in my
>parking lot. I stepped 12 paces for the length of the string and 39
>paces for a half-circle arcing from one end of a wall to the other.
>That ratio gave me 3.25. That's 3.5% more than pi. I imagine you could
>get pretty good accuracy with only a little more care and a longer piece
>of cotton string. Think I could get a government grant for that?
Not this year, I think the NSF budget for the year that began in January is
still not finalized. You could try the DOD around years end.
--
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
--
-- MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com)
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
In article <1996Jul17.225804.9669@ohstpy>, vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
> In article <malloy00....@bermuda.io.com>, mall...@io.com (MA Lloyd) writes:
>> dt king <dtk...@weblabs.com> writes:
>>
>>>Ok, I'm confused here. Is the sum of the length of the four sides
>>>divided by the height equal to pi or do the four corners touch the edge
>>>of an imaginary circle with a radius equal to the height of the pyramid,
>>>or is the length of one side the pyramid divided by the height equal to
>>>pi?
>
>
> distances.
>
>
> . A
> /|\
> / | \
> / + B\
> / | \
> D /____|_C__\ D'
>
> Let distance A-B and B-C be one unit. Let '2' represent the height of
> the pyramid. Then inscribe a circle of diamter 1 between B and C.
> Roll it one revolution to the left and mark that D, roll it one revolution
> to the right and mark it D'. The are the dimensions of the Pyramids.
Sorry, I meant half revolution right and left.
This makes the angle ADC = Atan(4/pi) = 51.85 degrees.
>
> The Egyptians designed it with a height of 280 cubits hig (distance AC). Then
> starting at C, the rolled a wheel of diameter 1 cubit 70 revolutions
> to the left and 70 revolutions to the right.
>
SO, perimeter/height = 140*4*pi/280 = 2*pi.
> The factor of pi exists by default, the proportionality is merely
> due to measuring with a wheel.
>
> -Garrett
I also don't think they planned it that way. It is an interesting coincidence.
-G
bryan leenheer
Gary Marriott wrote:
But...
Anybody have a ground-penetrating radar system that they're not using for
Tim Gillespie
I saw a "documentary" on the pyramids the other night. The narrator pointed out
that if you take the height of the Great Pyramid, use that for the radius of a
circle, the circumference of that circle equals the perimeter of the pyramid base.
I thought this was pretty cool and it shows that the Egyptians knew their geometry.
The narrator went on, however, to point out in a very ominous tone of voice that if
you take the perimeter of the pyramid, divide its length by twice the height of the
pyramid you get (while the mysterious music in the background builds to a
crescendo) the mystical number pi. And then he went on to attribute this mystical
connection to a higher intelligence. Why, because they knew geometry?
Of course you get pi. Pi is simply the ratio of the curcumference of a circle to
its diameter. If the perimeter of the base is equal in length to the
circumference of a circle whose radius is the height of the pyramid, then the
ratio of the perimeter of the base to twice the height MUST be pi. This is rather
like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 and then attributing some kind of mystical meaning to
the fact that 4 - 2 = 2. Why do people insist on superior intelligence being
involved in great feats of ancient engineering. Just because the ancient Egyptians
did not possess our technology does not mean that they did not possess our ability
to _reason_.
Tim Gillespie
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
In article <malloy00....@bermuda.io.com>, mall...@io.com (MA Lloyd) writes:
> dt king <dtk...@weblabs.com> writes:
>
>>Ok, I'm confused here. Is the sum of the length of the four sides
>>divided by the height equal to pi or do the four corners touch the edge
>>of an imaginary circle with a radius equal to the height of the pyramid,
>>or is the length of one side the pyramid divided by the height equal to
>>pi?
The pi factor occured because the builders used wheels to mark off
distances.
. A
/|\
/ | \
/ + B\
/ | \
D /____|_C__\ D'
Let distance A-B and B-C be one unit. Let '2' represent the height of
the pyramid. Then inscribe a circle of diamter 1 between B and C.
Roll it one revolution to the left and mark that D, roll it one revolution
to the right and mark it D'. The are the dimensions of the Pyramids.
The Egyptians designed it with a height of 280 cubits hig (distance AC). Then
starting at C, the rolled a wheel of diameter 1 cubit 70 revolutions
to the left and 70 revolutions to the right.
The factor of pi exists by default, the proportionality is merely
due to measuring with a wheel.
-Garrett
>
dt king
Tim Gillespie wrote:
> I saw a "documentary" on the pyramids the other night. The narrator pointed out
> that if you take the height of the Great Pyramid, use that for the radius of a
> circle, the circumference of that circle equals the perimeter of the pyramid base.
> I thought this was pretty cool and it shows that the Egyptians knew their geometry.
Ok, I'm confused here. Is the sum of the length of the four sides
divided by the height equal to pi or do the four corners touch the edge
of an imaginary circle with a radius equal to the height of the pyramid,
or is the length of one side the pyramid divided by the height equal to
pi?
If it's the corners touching the edge of the circle, then I think that
means that all points of the pyramid mark the surface of an imaginary
sphere with the focal point at the center of the base. That'd be neat.
Pi is really cool, but you know if you stake a really long string to the
ground and count the paces to the free end, then hold that end taut and
pace around in a circle, you get a pretty good estimate of pi.
I just went out with a piece of stretchy kite string and tried it in my
parking lot. I stepped 12 paces for the length of the string and 39
paces for a half-circle arcing from one end of a wall to the other.
That ratio gave me 3.25. That's 3.5% more than pi. I imagine you could
get pretty good accuracy with only a little more care and a longer piece
of cotton string. Think I could get a government grant for that?
dtk
Stephen Tonkin
dt king <dtk...@weblabs.com> writes
>I just went out with a piece of stretchy kite string and tried it in my
>parking lot. I stepped 12 paces for the length of the string and 39
>paces for a half-circle arcing from one end of a wall to the other.
>That ratio gave me 3.25. That's 3.5% more than pi. I imagine you could
>get pretty good accuracy with only a little more care and a longer piece
>of cotton string. Think I could get a government grant for that?
Sorry, mate, but I have already devised a better way. I put a chalk
mark on the tyre of my bicycle. With the bicycle vertical and the
chalk-mark on the ground, I measure the vertical distance from the
centre of the wheel-hub to the ground (h). I scratch the ground where
the chalk mark is. I then wheel the bicycle in a straight line until
the chalk-mark again touches the ground and scratch the ground again. I
measyre the distance between the two scratches (d).
The ratio d/h gives pi consistently better than 1 part in a hundred.
This is pure magic.
--
Stephen Tonkin <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
Stephen Tonkin
Tim Gillespie <tgil...@conc.tdsnet.com> writes
>Why do people insist on superior intelligence being
>involved in great feats of ancient engineering. Just because the ancient
>Egyptians
>did not possess our technology does not mean that they did not possess our
>ability
>to _reason_.
IMHO It is because our culture likes to believe that it has all the
knowledge of preceding cultures -- ergo, the false reasoning goes, if we
can't see how they could do something, then they couldn't have done it,
therefore a "superior intelligence" must have helped them.
I prefer to believe that they had a great deal of knowledge which has
been lost -- I'd love to have access to the Library of Alexandria
_before_ its destruction!
--
Stephen Tonkin <s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk>
bryan leenheer
Serge Rosmorduc wrote:
>
> Well I appologise for a manipulation error. I wrote :
> >>>>> "Serge" == Serge Rosmorduc <ros...@khety.iut.univ-paris8.fr> writes:
> but in fact the post I answered had been sent by bryan leenheer
> <blee...@millersqa.com>.
>
> regards,
> --
>
> Serge Rosmorduc,
I don't deny the alignment of the shafts, but I have a problem with the
"stellar orientation of the placement of the pyramids" theory. I haven't
seen the show that this came from. I don't know whether this theory has
been subjected to peer review, and I don't know the statistical
significance of the numbers involved.
If anyone has the answers to these questions, please post it here, or
email me. Like I said earlier, I will accept a 99.92% accuracy.
(considering the precision AND accuracy with which the pyramids were
made, if there is a correlation, it should be a much higher percent, but
I said that I will go for this sigma, and that's what I will stand by.)
All opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
my employer.
Charlie Rigano
Gary Marriott <ga...@garym.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There is a book out titles I think The Orion Mystery that gives more motiation
>for these Ideas.
>
>
>
> \ / *
> \ /
> \ /
> \ / *
> \ / * *
> \ /
> \ /
> \ / *
> \ /
> \ / *
>
>I'm still not convinced. But in the book the alignments and the motivations
>a chamber located benith the Sphinx (at the culmination of a precessional
>journey of a new king). Sisemic studies done some time ago that layed
>unregarded until they were serched for by the author after his prediction was
>made public, show this to be very likely.
>
>Sorry if this is a little off subject but contreversy and a fresh eye is
>sometimes usefull to any science. Especially a rather costepated one like
>Egyptology.
>
to Orion, but the pyramids at Abu Roach, Zawiet al Aryan,
and the Bent and Red pyramids at Dahshur. Try this. Lay
out the pyramid fields on one paper and the star locations
on another paper. Hold the star paper above the pyramid
paper and try to get a match. No matter how you twist the
papers around you can't even get close. I might also
notice in the books, to get the Dahshur pyramids to appear
to match the Haydes, Haydes is misplaced......by alot.
darylb
In article <1996Jul17.225804.9669@ohstpy>,
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>
> . A
> /|\
> / | \
> / + B\
> / | \
> D /____|_C__\ D'
>
> Let distance A-B and B-C be one unit. Let '2' represent the height of
> the pyramid. Then inscribe a circle of diamter 1 between B and C.
> Roll it one revolution to the left and mark that D, roll it one revolution
> to the right and mark it D'. The are the dimensions of the Pyramids.
I'm confused here too. If we had a squat pyramid the relationship wouldn't
exist if we had a "peaky" pyramid 8^) it wouldn't exist.
You show B at mid-hieght in the pyramid as the starting point for your
measurments. why?
Tim Gillespie
dt king wrote:
>
> Tim Gillespie wrote:
> > I saw a "documentary" on the pyramids the other night. The narrator pointed out
> > that if you take the height of the Great Pyramid, use that for the radius of a
> > circle, the circumference of that circle equals the perimeter of the pyramid base.
> > I thought this was pretty cool and it shows that the Egyptians knew their geometry.
>
> Ok, I'm confused here. Is the sum of the length of the four sides
> divided by the height equal to pi or do the four corners touch the edge
> of an imaginary circle with a radius equal to the height of the pyramid,
> or is the length of one side the pyramid divided by the height equal to
> pi?
>
I interpreted it as thus: Take the height (altitude) of the pyramid, make a circle using
the height as radius. The circumference (C = 2*pi*r) measurement of the circle then
makes the total perimeter of the base. (i.e., take the circumference divided by 4 to get
a side).
As a consequence of this arrangement, the perimeter of the base (which is the same
measurement as the circumference of the circle) divided by twice the height (recall the
height is the radius of the circle, thus twice the height is the diameter of the circle)
equals pi. (C/d = pi)
Tim
bryan leenheer
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu wrote:
-snip-
> If there is anything down there, you or I will never see it...
>
> -Garrett
-snip-
Why not? We can go to Cairo and look at the grave goods of Tutanhkamen,
and that was a great deal more exciting than the presumption of Atlantean
Doctrines in a chamber beneath the Sphinx. Besides, from what I said in
my previous post, the followers of Cayce _WANT_ to prove the existance of
the 'prophecied treasures'. What I would be worried about is the
possibility of fraud.
Anyway, we've gone off the topic here, and should probably also drop this
from sci.astro.amateur and sci.astro if this thread continues along this
line.
And the offer of my believing that there is a significant correlation
between the stars of Orion and the pyramids is still open. 99.92%,
remember! Anyone out there who feels like going for the books and
putting the statistics here? Or do they keep those for themselves?
Remember that in science, the burden of proof is on the new theory.
Guilty until proven innocent, if you will.
All opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my
employer.
bryan leenheer
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> Umm, stars move around relative to each other, they don't stay fixed.
>
> -G
I do realize this. Feel free to add the known movements of the stars into
the equations.
Ross Brunetti
The stars are just stars (randomly placed from anyone's point of view), and the pyramids
are a creation of a culture that placed emphasis on them for their own resons. Same
thing for the builders of Stonehenge, or whatever.
Assuming that we're not the-only-species-in-the universe-considering-itself-INTELLIGENT,
then, someday, we'll contact other beings. Then, we can compare notes on just what
asterisms fascinated their early cultures.
Until then, here's one humble geologist's opinion:
Our various ancestors built structures aligned on those "Big Lights in the Sky" because
they thought they were important We build huge telescopes because we want to know
what those lights in the sky really are. That's all.
Ross
Kevin Simonich
MA Lloyd (mall...@io.com) wrote:
: dt king <dtk...@weblabs.com> writes:
: >Ok, I'm confused here. Is the sum of the length of the four sides
: >divided by the height equal to pi or do the four corners touch the edge
: >of an imaginary circle with a radius equal to the height of the pyramid,
: >or is the length of one side the pyramid divided by the height equal to
: >pi?
: I know the pyramid numerologists work in pi somewhere, so it must by
: the first, since in the second case the ratio of the height to a side
: of the base would be half the square root of 2. One thing I wonder, why it
: it always the perimeter used in these things, is the base actually so
: far off being a square they don't want to use the side lengths?
: Is the pyramid that steep though, those give slopes of 51.9 and 54.7
: degrees.
There was actually a pretty good PBS or Discovery channel thing on this a
while back. I seem to recall it was one of those James Burke "Connections"
things, but am unsure. Anyway, it had some really good explanations for why
the proportions are as they are, and why Pi is a factor. (real world
explanations, not "Aliens told them" or "Atlanteans" or anything like that.)
It also explained some of the construction elements, and some notes on
likely construction methods. If anyone else recalls this, and could note
which exact show it was, I'd appreciate it.
-Kevin Simonich
Larry Caldwell
In article <31EDD0...@millersqa.com>,
bryan leenheer <blee...@millersqa.com> wrote:
> vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> > Umm, stars move around relative to each other, they don't stay fixed.
> the equations.
The relative motions of the stars in question were posted in sci.astro
recently. They amount to about 0.011 arc second per year if you add
them all up. Four thousand years gives about 44 arc seconds of relative
motion. Since there are sixty seconds in a minute and sixty minutes in
a degree, the relative motion of the stars in 4,000 years has been
about a hundredth of a degree. Even if you credit the catastrophists
and Velikovsky freaks, the relative motion in 10,000 years has only
been three hundredths of a degree. To the limits of the human eye,
the stars had the same position when the pyramids were built that they
have right now.
-- Larry
dt king
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
> Sorry, mate, but I have already devised a better way. I put a chalk
> mark on the tyre of my bicycle. With the bicycle vertical and the
> chalk-mark on the ground, I measure the vertical distance from the
> centre of the wheel-hub to the ground (h). I scratch the ground where
> the chalk mark is. I then wheel the bicycle in a straight line until
> the chalk-mark again touches the ground and scratch the ground again. I
> measyre the distance between the two scratches (d).
>
> The ratio d/h gives pi consistently better than 1 part in a hundred.
>
> This is pure magic.
Not only that, but from another recent posting...
vanc...@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> > The pi factor occured because the builders used wheels to mark off
> > distances.
> >
> >
> > . A
> > /|\
> > / | \
> > / + B\
> > / | \
> > D /____|_C__\ D'
> >
> > Let distance A-B and B-C be one unit. Let '2' represent the height of
> > the pyramid. Then inscribe a circle of diamter 1 between B and C.
> > Roll it one revolution to the left and mark that D, roll it one revolution
> > to the right and mark it D'. The are the dimensions of the Pyramids.
>
> Sorry, I meant half revolution right and left.
>
> This makes the angle ADC = Atan(4/pi) = 51.85 degrees.
>
> >
> > The Egyptians designed it with a height of 280 cubits hig (distance AC). Then
> > starting at C, the rolled a wheel of diameter 1 cubit 70 revolutions
> > to the left and 70 revolutions to the right.
> >
Ah, it all comes together now -- sure proof that ancient Egyptian
architects had bicycles!
dtk
JR Tate
Why are catastrophists categorised as freaks? The problem of cosmic impact
is real - ask Gene Shoemaker about his presentation at ACM96.
August Matthusen
In <4srej6$j...@soap.news.pipex.net> JR Tate <fr...@dial.pipex.com>
writes:
>Why are catastrophists categorised as freaks? The problem of cosmic
impact is real - ask Gene Shoemaker about his presentation at ACM96.
They aren't all considered freaks. Just the ones that do it without
real evidence. There is a quantum leap between invoking catastrophes
based on myths (Velikovsky's plantary billiard balls and creationist's
flood) and delimiting catastrophes based on scientific evidence
(Shoemaker and Meteor Crater, Arizona and Shoemaker-Levy impacting
Jupiter or the Alvarez's KT impact at Chixalub). Shoemaker and the
Alvarezes based their ideas on existing geologic evidence.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Paul S.M. Curran
It seems as if this thread has deviated from the orignal focus. Either we get it on
track or drop it. I beleived I saw a show that was responsible for the originbal
gist of this thread. The theory arose to help explain an inconsistency noticed by a
geologist. This geologist noticed that the erosion of the Sphinx's body was typical
of the erosion caused by water and not wind. The theory was was then put forth that
the Sphinx, or at least its body, was built four to five thousand years earlier.
There are a few achaologists who also feel that this is true. They claim that the
pyramids are the result of a fairly mature culture and not the expressions of a young
one. To help bolster there hypothesis, they explored the the skies of 10,500 BC and
noticed that the if the Nile river was to represent the Milky Way, then the pyramids
of Giza roughly correspond to the Belt stars of Orion. Also the Sphinx is pointed in
the direction of the Vernal equinox, which in 10,500 BC was in Leo. The people who
put forth this theory do not argue that the pyramids were built in 10,000 BC, but
rather the knowledge of this time was somehow passed down to the Egyptians. It
should be noted that none of the individuals behind this theory are "pyramidologists"
or followers of Edgar Cayce.
Paul Curran
ps...@ix.netcom.com
Pat Zalewski
In article <569013...@garym.demon.co.uk>,
in the magazine Atlantis Rising. We do not get it here down under, and I was
just sent a copy from the States. It covers what some noteable historians
have said about chambers beneath the Sphinx which in itself is not new. It
also refers directly to the Stele of Thutmose which has a drawing of a chamber
entrance on both sides of the Sphinx. Also in one book . I think it was a
mysteries of the Pyramids or some such title there is a photo taken in the
1920's ,with the top part of a doorway exposed (which was then backfilled). I
think the big question is not if there is something down there, for there has
been clearly shown and recorded (from Hereodotus to Coptic Chronicler Al
Masudi) that there are passages there but what they contain. I am one of those
who believe that the sphinx is a great deal older then we have thought (that's
about the only thing hancock and I agree on) and this weather concept to
determine a date is a frightfull waste of mind power.
Mark Wilson
Michael Farthing <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <miken.837548259@julie> mi...@teleport.com "Sawfish" writes:
>>
>> It would indeed be interesting (and persuasive, too!) to us uninformed
>> know-nothing lurkers if anyone could suggest just why the particular
>> stars in question had such significance that the pyramid builders
>> would want to influence the construction to model/measure these astral
>> bodies.
>>
>> It would seem to me that there would be enough independent textual
>> confirmation from inscriptions that would mention these stars as
>> having some important associations. This type of information should
>> have been known to conventional egyptologists for years. Is there any
>> such definitive independent corrolation?
>>
>> ..and another thing. Clearly, the Egytians who built the pyramids
>> in question did not conceive of the stars we think of as a part
>> of Orion's belt as a part of, well, a hero's belt, did they? I mean,
>> *we* logically group the stars together to imagine a belt. Is there
>> any indepent textual information that indicates that the Egyptians
>> viewed these stars as logically grouped? It sorta seems to me like this
>> would be well-documented in inscriptions, too.
>Maybe I'm being unfair, but I detect a little cynical dismissiveness in this
>post. However, taking it at face value there is considerable evidence of
>the significance of various stars for the Egyptians. The following passage
>is quoted from "Star Names Their Lore and Meaning" by Richard Hinckley Allen
>(kindly recommended to me by a regular in sci.astro):
>"In Egypt, as everywhere, Orion was of course prominent .. as Horus [God
>incarnated as the Pharaoh] in a boat surmounted by stars, followed by
>Sirius, shown as a cow, also in a boat; and nearly three thousand years
>previously had been sculptured on the walls of the recently discovered
>step-temple of Sakkara, and in the great Ramesseum of Thebes about 3285 BC
>as Sahu. This twice appears in the Book of the Dead" [Collection of texts
>frequently found in graves: called a book for historical reasons]
>Square brackets contain my comments. Horus is significant as the Pharaoh
>was his incarnation. On death, he would ascend to heaven to become
>Osiris, the successor Pharaoh continuing as an incarnation of Horus. The
>alignment of the Pyramids, and in particular shafts out of the burial chamber,
>are believed to aid the passage of the departing Pharaoh to Osiris.
>Sirius was of particular significance because it heralded the arrival of
>the flooding of the Nile, and so was perhaps the most important star for
>Egyptian astronomers (getting it wrong would definitely cost them the
>election, as it were).
>Can I also point out that some respondents seem to be demanding 'evidence'
>from the originator of the thread. The thread originator in fact asked for
>comments on the standing of the theory in academic circles and was not in
>any way committed to the theory one way or the other. (nor, incidentally,
>am I). However, it is certainly the case that Orion is not a random choice
>of stars to concoct a theory. Apart from the fact that it is one of the most
>obvious constellation-like constellations, there is plenty of evidence that
>it had particular significance for Egyptians, and after all we do actually
>know they had given it a name (Sahu).
"Lo, he has come as Orion,
Lo, Osiris has come as Orion...
You shall rise with Orion in the eastern sky,
You shall set with Orion in the western sky,
Your third * is Sothis, pure of thrones,
She is your guide on sky's good paths,
In the Field of Rushes."
- Pyramid Texts Utterance 442
* The king and Orion are both being addressed, Sirius is the
third.
Edward Schempf
What is meant by "sky's good paths" could it be the ecliptic? If so,
it would not be too near Sirius? Where is the "Field of Rushes"?
Mark Wilson
Count Szabo
Edward Schempf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Jul 1996 23:44:11 GMT, ma...@rostau.demon.co.uk (Mark
> Wilson) wrote:
>
> it would not be too near Sirius? Where is the "Field of Rushes"?
The context of the quote, I assume, is speaking to a Pharoah about his
journey into the afterlife. The guide, Sothis, is the Pharoah's guide
through the sky, and she will pick the good paths. These texts employ
metaphors in virtually any important line. The field of rushes would
likely be a metaphor for a nearby field of rushes. Perhaps one that is
difficult to navigate by boat.
--
zoomQuake....210+ of the best ancient history related links on the net!
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/index.html
Emiel Kersten
Hey people, lets go back on the correlation thing.
I overlayed two pics from
http://www.CityScape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/orion/orion.htm
and guess what: it's really difficult to get a match with all the
three stars at the same time. I don't have the picture now, but
if anyone cares, i could post it (GIF/JPG, whatever)
Emiel
Bart Uyttenhove
Haven't followed this thread, but did you use the starchart, calculated back to
the time of the farao's ?
I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of orion
at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller constructions
build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...) They
even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
Bart
---- E-Mail : Bart.Uy...@ping.be ----
---- Homepage: http://www.ping.be/~ping1960 ----
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>>...it's difficult to get a match with all the three stars at the same time..
> ...did you use the starchart, calculated back to the time of the faraos ?
> I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of orion
> at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
> perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller constructions
> build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!
It bears repeating that the 3 stars of Orion's belt are so distant that
they have not moved perceptibly since the pyramid building days. Compare this
to Sirius, which is a relatively close star, and *has moved in that time.
Also, the other pyramids that are claimed to correlate to the other stars
in Orion *don't match their corresponding stellar positions at all. Even
the proponents of the idea have admitted this now, but respond with well,
it was hard for the builders to plot their locations accurately over the
distances and terrain involved.
Any claim as to stellar/pyramid correlation had better stick to the 3 belt
stars and the 3 Giza pyramids.
Joe
Emiel Kersten
Bart Uyttenhove wrote:
> > Haven't followed this thread, but did you use the starchart, calculated back to
> the time of the farao's ?
Noop. I used the pics on the site.
> I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of orion
> at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
> perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller constructions
> build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...) They
> even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
Ok, then i'm wrong, sorry.
Another question. How do they know the time of the Building of the
piramids?
Maybe they shifted a bit to get the exact match...
I want to take a look at that program. Any idea how?
de mazzel,
Emiel
Duane C. Johnson
Bart Uyttenhove wrote:
>
> >Hey people, lets go back on the correlation thing.
> >I overlayed two pics from
> >http://www.CityScape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/orion/orion.htm
> >and guess what: it's really difficult to get a match with all the
> >three stars at the same time. I don't have the picture now, but
> >if anyone cares, i could post it (GIF/JPG, whatever)
> the time of the farao's ?
> at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
> perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller constructions
> build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...) They
> even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
>
Where can we get the images of the old star charts?
--
CUL8ER
Duane C. Johnson
WA0VBE
Red Rock Energy
1825 Florence St.
White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
red...@pclink.com
dc...@PO8.RV.unisys.com
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/
(612)426-4766 h 635-5065 d
Mark Wilson
Count Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > "Lo, he has come as Orion,
>> > Lo, Osiris has come as Orion...
>> > You shall rise with Orion in the eastern sky,
>> > You shall set with Orion in the western sky,
>> > Your third * is Sothis, pure of thrones,
>> > She is your guide on sky's good paths,
>> > In the Field of Rushes."
>> > - Pyramid Texts Utterance 442
>> >
>> >
>> >* The king and Orion are both being addressed, Sirius is the
>> > third.
>> >
>> >
>> What is meant by "sky's good paths" could it be the ecliptic? If so,
>> it would not be too near Sirius? Where is the "Field of Rushes"?
>The context of the quote, I assume, is speaking to a Pharoah about his
>journey into the afterlife. The guide, Sothis, is the Pharoah's guide
>through the sky, and she will pick the good paths. These texts employ
>metaphors in virtually any important line. The field of rushes would
>likely be a metaphor for a nearby field of rushes. Perhaps one that is
>difficult to navigate by boat.
Well, since we are told that the king rises with Orion and sets with Orion,
the good paths could well be simply that path that Orion takes from when it
rises to when it sets. Also, Sirius isn't too far away so could easily been
seen as Orion's guide.
Orion is near the edge of the milky way which was refered to in the PT as the
Winding Waterway. It makes sense that you may get a field of rushes in marshy
land, particularly after the flooding of this 'Celestial Nile'.
regards
Mark Wilson.
Charlie Rigano
Bart.Uy...@ping.be (Bart Uyttenhove) wrote:
>
>>Hey people, lets go back on the correlation thing.
>>I overlayed two pics from
>>http://www.CityScape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/orion/orion.htm
>>and guess what: it's really difficult to get a match with all the
>>three stars at the same time. I don't have the picture now, but
>>if anyone cares, i could post it (GIF/JPG, whatever)
>Haven't followed this thread, but did you use the starchart, calculated back to
>the time of the farao's ?
>I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of orion
>at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
>perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller constructions
>build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...) They
>even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
>
>Bart
I have laid out on one paper the Dynasty iv pyramids. I
have laid out on another paper the stars they are suppose
to model. They don't match. They don't even come close to
matching. No matter how I twist or turn the papers, they
don't match. They don't come close to matching. Wait did
I say this enough times - there is no correlation at all -
at all.
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>> I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of
>> orion
>> at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
>> perfect match.
> Where can we get the images of the old star charts?
Save your time! The belt stars have not perceptibly moved since the
pyramids were built. Their present positions relative to one another
have not changed from our perspective. And by no means is it a "perfect"
match! The centers (apices) of the pyramids do not fall exactly where
they should relative to the star positions. The most one can really say is
that the pattern is suggestive (3 objects, about equidistant, with the
rightmost one offset a bit up).
Joe
Michael Bonnes
"Duane C. Johnson" <red...@pclink.com> wrote:
>Bart Uyttenhove wrote:
>>
>> >Hey people, lets go back on the correlation thing.
>> >I overlayed two pics from
>> >http://www.CityScape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/orion/orion.htm
>> >and guess what: it's really difficult to get a match with all the
>> >three stars at the same time. I don't have the picture now, but
>> >if anyone cares, i could post it (GIF/JPG, whatever)
>> Haven't followed this thread, but did you use the starchart, calculated back to
>> the time of the farao's ?
>> at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
>> build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...) They
>> even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
>>
>> Bart
>>
>
>CUL8ER
>
>Duane C. Johnson
>WA0VBE
>Red Rock Energy
>1825 Florence St.
>White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
>red...@pclink.com
>dc...@PO8.RV.unisys.com
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/
>(612)426-4766 h 635-5065 d
>
>
>
Duane C. Johnson
I didn't ask a question on astrology. I asked a question on astronomy.
I want to know where to get a star chart of the Orion star field as
it would appear in ancient times. This is an astronomy question.
Duane C. Johnson
Charlie Rigano wrote:
>
> Bart.Uy...@ping.be (Bart Uyttenhove) wrote:
> >
> >>Hey people, lets go back on the correlation thing.
> >>I overlayed two pics from
> >>http://www.CityScape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/orion/orion.htm
> >>and guess what: it's really difficult to get a match with all the
> >>three stars at the same time. I don't have the picture now, but
> >>if anyone cares, i could post it (GIF/JPG, whatever)
> >Haven't followed this thread, but did you use the starchart, calculated back to
> >the time of the farao's ?
> >I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of orion
> >at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
> >perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller constructions
> >build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...) They
> >even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
> >
> >Bart
>
> have laid out on another paper the stars they are suppose
> to model. They don't match. They don't even come close to
> matching. No matter how I twist or turn the papers, they
> don't match. They don't come close to matching. Wait did
> I say this enough times - there is no correlation at all -
used the star positions as they were when the pyramids were built.
The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
into account when you plotted the star chart?
I am only curious?
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>> I say this enough times - there is no correlation at all -
>> at all.
> You have said this many times but you have not said that you
> used the star positions as they were when the pyramids were built.
> The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
Yes, the stars do move, and they do have proper motions. But
the belt stars are so distant from us that their change in relative
position is imperceptible since the pyramids were built. Modern
star charts give the same positions as in Pharoah's day for
these stars. The passage of time is simply not an issue for these
stars.
Joe
Stephen Tonkin
"Duane C. Johnson" <red...@pclink.com> writes
>They don't come close to matching. Wait did
>used the star positions as they were when the pyramids were built.
>
>The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
The other thing to take into account is the projections used.
--
Stephen Tonkin : UK Amateur Telescope Making Pages
<s...@aegis1.demon.co.uk> : <http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm>
darylb
In article <4tu26p$9...@bdmserver.mcl.bdm.com>, Charlie Rigano
<cri...@bdm.com> wrote:
> I have laid out on one paper the Dynasty iv pyramids. I
> have laid out on another paper the stars they are suppose
> to model. They don't match. They don't even come close to
> matching. No matter how I twist or turn the papers, they
> at all.
What projection was your star map?
Dispasionately,
Daryl
--
Clouds are high flying fogs.
Count Szabo
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> Yes, the stars do move, and they do have proper motions. But
> the belt stars are so distant from us that their change in relative
> position is imperceptible since the pyramids were built. Modern
> star charts give the same positions as in Pharoah's day for
> these stars. The passage of time is simply not an issue for these
> stars.
>
> Joe
Then on what grounds or data were the programmers for any of the
astronomy programs (IE Skyglobe, etc) going on to effect more dramatic
changes than you speak of?
--
zoomQuake....220+ of the best ancient history related links on the net!
http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/index.html
Charlie Rigano
>>
>> I have laid out on one paper the Dynasty iv pyramids. I
>> have laid out on another paper the stars they are suppose
>> to model. They don't match. They don't even come close to
>> matching. No matter how I twist or turn the papers, they
>> don't match. They don't come close to matching. Wait did
>> I say this enough times - there is no correlation at all -
>> at all.You have said this many times but you have not said that you
>used the star positions as they were when the pyramids were built.
>
>The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
>into account when you plotted the star chart?
>
>I am only curious?
>--
I did not take proper motion into account, on purpose.
Compared to how far off the comparison of the pyramids and
the starrs is, proper motion would not bring them back into
alignment. The comparison shows that there is a major
difference - I mean major - between the location of the
Haydes and the two Dahshur pyramids. There sre also
problems with the location of the Zawiet el Aryan and the
Abu Roasch pyramids. There is a problem about which way is
north. I am not talking small differences, I am talking
big differences not accounted for by proper motion.
The major change in the location of the stars over time is
not their position relative to each other or to the Milky
Way, but the altitude above the horizon and which part of
the Milky Way is visable in the sky.
I suggest you do the same comparison I did and see what you
think. Remember the star positions relative to each other
has not changed significantly over the last 12,000 years.
Charlie
Charlie Rigano
">
>--
>CUL8ER
>
>Duane C. Johnson
>WA0VBE
>Red Rock Energy
>1825 Florence St.
>White Bear Lake, MN, USA 55110-3364
>red...@pclink.com
>dc...@PO8.RV.unisys.com
>http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/3027/
>(612)426-4766 h 635-5065 d
>
Duane,
Unless you are lonely, it is probably not a good idea to
publish your address and phone number in a public note.
While you and I are certainly sane (unless you ask my
wife), not everyone out there is.
Charlie
Frank Doernenburg
Hi!
To get once and for all over the "Did you look at the constellations in the past"-debate:
I calculated the movement of the stars for 2600 BC and 10500 BC and tried to match these constellations with the pyramids of the 4th dynastie. The stars moved so little, there is nearly no difference, see the table below.
And: There is simply no match. First: to get the belt stars and the Giza pyramids covered, you have to turn the whole map about 14 degrees. Not good for a start.
If you scale the map to get the best covering in the belt, all the other pyramids are some 1000% from ther supposed positions (21000 % with Snofru/Aldebaran!!!) Sorry, no deal. If wished I could post a list with the converted coordinates of the
pyramids and the projected stars, but believe me, there is no match.
Now to the star movments (Source: Yale catalogue of bright stars):
2600 BC 10500 BC
Star : EB Alp/Del : delta a/d : delta a/d :
---------:---------------:--------------:----------------:
Alp ORI : 0.027/ 0.007 : 2'07"/ 32" : 5'38"/ 1'28" :
Bet ORI : 0.001/ 0.000 : 5"/ 0" : 13"/ 0" :
Gam ORI : -0.006/-0.014 : 28"/ 1'04" : 1'15"/ 2'55" :
Del ORI : 0.001/-0.001 : 5"/ 5" : 13"/ 13" :
Eps ORI : 0.000/ 0.000 : 0"/ 0" : 0"/ 0" :
Zet ORI : 0.004/-0.002 : 18"/ 9" : 50"/ 25" :
Kap ORI : 0.004/-0.002 : 18"/ 9" : 50"/ 25" :
Alp TAU : 0.069/-0.190 : 5'17"/14'34" : 14'23"/39'35" :
Eps TAU : 0.000/ 0.000 : 0"/ 0" : 0" 0" :
Explanation: EB=Eigenbewegung, the movement of the stars in rectascension (Alp) and declination (Del) in seconds per year.
Then: Total position change to our constellation 2600 BC and 10500 BC, measured in minutes (') and seconds (") in rect. and decl.The movement of only one star is visible with the naked eye: Aldebaran (Alp Tau) moved 1/4 full moon diameter in 4600
years and nearly 1 1/2 diameters in 12500 years. The other movements are not visible!
Some things are fascinating: As you know, the pyramids were built more or less at the edge of the nile valley. This valley has a slightly diagonal orientation, so the slightly diagonal pyramid alignment is natural! I would expect at least one
building away from the edge of the valley to confirm the "orion theory", but such a building doesent exist. Only the stars for the "valley edge pyramids" are represented on earth - why?
Second: Has noone ever noticed, that Bauval got the star map the wrong way round? Star maps represent constellations overhead. What he did was, that he projected such a map onto a ground map. But in the real world all the pyramids are standing the
wrong way! The Snofru pyramids, representing the Hyades, are southwards from Giza - the stars for them are far north from orion!! When you look sideways on the giza-plateau you will even notice that the pyramid of mykerinos and "his" star misalign:
the star is northwards, the pyramid southwards from the line!
Third: Mr. Bauval "forgot" some buildings of the 4th dynastie. He included the Nebka-pyramid, which never got over the first stage, but simply left out the grave of Schepseskaf (last king of the 4th dynastie) and the pyramid at Medum.
Bye,
FD
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
>> Yes, the stars do move, and they do have proper motions. But
>> the belt stars are so distant from us that their change in relative
>> position is imperceptible since the pyramids were built. Modern
>> star charts give the same positions as in Pharoah's day for
>> these stars. The passage of time is simply not an issue for these stars.
> astronomy programs (IE Skyglobe, etc) going on to effect more dramatic
> changes than you speak of?
For the 3 belt stars, they can't be. The belt stars are in the
same position relative to one another as they were when the pyramids
were built. Maybe you're talking about precession here -- which makes
the whole night sky (including the belt stars) rise higher and lower
relative to the local horizon over the centuries. But this doesn't affect
the positions of the stars relative to one another, which is due to
their own proper motions, which in the case of the belt stars is
imperceptible.
It's like if you drew 3 points on a paper, then raised the paper up and
down. The position of the 3 points relative to one another doesn't change,
the only thing that changes is how high up in the air they are.
David M. Palmer
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>> Then on what grounds or data were the programmers for any of the
>> astronomy programs (IE Skyglobe, etc) going on to effect more dramatic
>> changes than you speak of?
>For the 3 belt stars, they can't be. The belt stars are in the
>same position relative to one another as they were when the pyramids
>were built. Maybe you're talking about precession here -- which makes
>the whole night sky (including the belt stars) rise higher and lower
>relative to the local horizon over the centuries. But this doesn't affect
>the positions of the stars relative to one another, which is due to
>their own proper motions, which in the case of the belt stars is
>imperceptible.
>It's like if you drew 3 points on a paper, then raised the paper up and
>down. The position of the 3 points relative to one another doesn't change,
>the only thing that changes is how high up in the air they are.
Precesion also causes a rotation back and forth, with an amplitude of
40 or 50 degrees or so. The distances between the stars, and the 'bend
angle' as you go from star A to star B to star C don't change, but the
position angle of the line between two stars does. (e.g. if the line
from Rigel to Bellatrix is currently 5 degrees East of North, at other
times in the 26000 year precession cycle it may be 25 degrees East of
North, or 15 degrees West of North). The stars don't move, but North
does.
--
David Palmer
dmpa...@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/dmpalmer/
Stephen Tonkin
Charlie Rigano <cri...@bdm.com> writes
>>The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
>>into account when you plotted the star chart?
>>
>>I am only curious?
>>--
>I did not take proper motion into account, on purpose.
>Compared to how far off the comparison of the pyramids and
>the starrs is, proper motion would not bring them back into
>alignment. The comparison shows that there is a major
>difference - I mean major - between the location of the
>Haydes and the two Dahshur pyramids. There sre also
>problems with the location of the Zawiet el Aryan and the
>Abu Roasch pyramids. There is a problem about which way is
>north. I am not talking small differences, I am talking
>big differences not accounted for by proper motion.
I am still curious to know what projection you guys (and everyone else
arguing about this) are using.
Whilst I accept that possibly the only way the stars can fit the ground
is if one used some strange "complicated skewed conic that has
cylindrical bits as well", I don't understand how one can begin to argue
about whether or not the pyramids, etc are a projection of the stars
onto the desert without stating what projection is being used.
Mind you, could this be proof that the Egyptians used some "complicated
skewed conic that has cylindrical bits as well" when they attempted to
project the dome of the heavens onto the flat desert?
:-^
Adrian Gilbert
In article <32062D...@pclink.com>,
>> >
>> >>Hey people, lets go back on the correlation thing.
>> >>I overlayed two pics from
>> >>http://www.CityScape.co.uk/users/iy12/aaes/orion/orion.htm
>> >>and guess what: it's really difficult to get a match with all the
>> >>three stars at the same time. I don't have the picture now, but
>> >>if anyone cares, i could post it (GIF/JPG, whatever)
>> >Haven't followed this thread, but did you use the starchart, calculated
back to
>> >the time of the farao's ?
>> >I saw BBC's Horizon program about this and they overlayed the starchart of
orion
>> >at the time of the Building of the piramids, with a landmap and it was a
>> >perfect match. And there is more: After this there were smaller
constructions
>> >build on the exact location of the other orion's stars!(Rigel,Saif,...)
They
>> >even discovered a building on one of the starpositions.
>> >
>> >Bart
>>
>> have laid out on another paper the stars they are suppose
>> to model. They don't match. They don't even come close to
>> matching. No matter how I twist or turn the papers, they
>> don't match. They don't come close to matching. Wait did
>> I say this enough times - there is no correlation at all -
>> at all.You have said this many times but you have not said that you
>
>The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
>into account when you plotted the star chart?
>
>I am only curious?
visit the website I have set up at http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos ? I am
the co-author (with Robert Bauval) of the book "The Orion Mystery" which
started all of this. At the solos website you will find answers to many of the
questions most often asked as well as links to where you can see these
pictures. Cheers. Adrian G. Gilbert so...@enterprise.net
Rodney Small
so...@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert) wrote:
>If you are interested in the Orion correlation story then may I advise you to
>visit the website I have set up at http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos ? I am
>the co-author (with Robert Bauval) of the book "The Orion Mystery" which
>started all of this. At the solos website you will find answers to many of the
> questions most often asked as well as links to where you can see these
>pictures.
I checked the website, and did not find an answer to the question of the
angle of the Orion belt stars relative to one another. I know what the
azimuths of the second and third Giza Pyramids are relative to the Great
Pyramid, and want to compare these azimuths to the azimuths of Al Nilam
and Mintaka to Al Nitak, both in 2600 BC and 10,500 BC. Do you have these
azimuths? Thanks.
Charlie Rigano
dar...@bnr.ca (darylb) wrote:
>In article <4tu26p$9...@bdmserver.mcl.bdm.com>, Charlie Rigano
><cri...@bdm.com> wrote:
>> have laid out on another paper the stars they are suppose
>> to model. They don't match. They don't even come close to
>> matching. No matter how I twist or turn the papers, they
>> don't match. They don't come close to matching. Wait did
>> I say this enough times - there is no correlation at all -
>
>What projection was your star map?
>
>Dispasionately,
>Daryl
>
>--
My star map reference is entitled "Skalnate Pleso, Atlas of
the Heavans, 1950" published by Sky Publishing Corp,
Harvard College Obseratory. I don't know the proper
name for the projection used in the Atlas, but the north
and south pole regions are represented by points. My
reference for pyramid locations is "Atlas of Ancient
Egypt".
I have laid out star and pyramid locations on seprate
papers, manipulated the papers to find the best match, than
transferred both to a single piece of paper. For scale and
alignment reference I matched the three Giza pyramids to
the three Orion belt stars. My findings are as follows-
measurement are accurate to about a mile:
-The pyramids are enclosed in a rectangle 17 miles
north-south and 8 miles east-west.
- The only view I could find that matches the alignment of
the Giza pyramids to the belt stars and places the Abu
Roach/Dashur/Zawiet al Aryan pyramids in closest relation
to their respective stars assumes that the stars are on a
flat sky and you go above the sky and look down through the
stars at the pyramids. This would be acceptable from the
ancients point of view, but to get this match I have to
rotate either the ground or the sky 180 degrees so that
north on the pyramid view matches south on the star
view.[OK so I am mixing findings and conclusions - but I am
not writing a technical paper here]
- When I measure the distance between the pyramid location
and the star projection on the ground I get the following
results.
The Giza pyramids match the belt stars because I set
them as a reference to align my model.
Saiph projection is 4 miles from the Abu Roach pyramid.
Bellitrix projection is 3 miles from the Zawiet
pyramids.
The projection of the two Haydes stars are 11 and 12
miles from the Bent and Red pyramids.
Rememeber these descrepancies are measured in a rectangle 8
by 17 miles.
The result is that when I say there is no match between the
stars and the pyramids - there is no match between the
stars and the pyramids.
Charlie
Stella Nemeth
Charlie Rigano <cri...@bdm.com> wrote:
>.... My findings are as follows-
>-The pyramids are enclosed in a rectangle 17 miles
>north-south and 8 miles east-west.
[snip]
>- When I measure the distance between the pyramid location
>and the star projection on the ground I get the following
>results.
> The Giza pyramids match the belt stars because I set
>them as a reference to align my model.
> Saiph projection is 4 miles from the Abu Roach pyramid.
> Bellitrix projection is 3 miles from the Zawiet
>pyramids.
> The projection of the two Haydes stars are 11 and 12
>miles from the Bent and Red pyramids.
>Rememeber these descrepancies are measured in a rectangle 8
>by 17 miles.
Basically you are saying that the two Haydes stars are at the opposite
side of the rectangle from the Bent and Red pyramids, and this is the
best match you could get. Is that right?
If we had a FAQ this should go into it. Too bad we don't have a FAQ.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Charlie Rigano
Frank_Do...@do2.maus.ruhr.de (Frank Doernenburg)
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>To get once and for all over the "Did you look at the constellations in the past"-debate:
h dynastie. The stars moved so little, there is nearly no difference, see the table below.
degrees. Not good for a start.
0 % with Snofru/Aldebaran!!!) Sorry, no deal. If wished I could post a list with the converted coordinates of the
>pyramids and the projected stars, but believe me, there is no match.
>
>Now to the star movments (Source: Yale catalogue of bright stars):
>
> 2600 BC 10500 BC
> Star : EB Alp/Del : delta a/d : delta a/d :
>---------:---------------:--------------:----------------:
>Alp ORI : 0.027/ 0.007 : 2'07"/ 32" : 5'38"/ 1'28" :
>Bet ORI : 0.001/ 0.000 : 5"/ 0" : 13"/ 0" :
>Gam ORI : -0.006/-0.014 : 28"/ 1'04" : 1'15"/ 2'55" :
>Del ORI : 0.001/-0.001 : 5"/ 5" : 13"/ 13" :
>Eps ORI : 0.000/ 0.000 : 0"/ 0" : 0"/ 0" :
>Zet ORI : 0.004/-0.002 : 18"/ 9" : 50"/ 25" :
>Kap ORI : 0.004/-0.002 : 18"/ 9" : 50"/ 25" :
>Alp TAU : 0.069/-0.190 : 5'17"/14'34" : 14'23"/39'35" :
>Eps TAU : 0.000/ 0.000 : 0"/ 0" : 0" 0" :
>
>Explanation: EB=Eigenbewegung, the movement of the stars in rectascension (Alp) and declination (Del) in seconds per year.
e movement of only one star is visible with the naked eye: Aldebaran (Alp Tau) moved 1/4 full moon diameter in 4600
>years and nearly 1 1/2 diameters in 12500 years. The other movements are not visible!
>
>
ightly diagonal orientation, so the slightly diagonal pyramid alignment is natural! I would expect at least one
"valley edge pyramids" are represented on earth - why?
>
he did was, that he projected such a map onto a ground map. But in the real world all the pyramids are standing the
hen you look sideways on the giza-plateau you will even notice that the pyramid of mykerinos and "his" star misalign:
>the star is northwards, the pyramid southwards from the line!
>
but simply left out the grave of Schepseskaf (last king of the 4th dynastie) and the pyramid at Medum.
>
>Bye,
> FD
Thanks for the great post. I know the subject won't die
with it but I think you have made the point really well
that the correlation theory leaves alot to be desired.
Charlie
Donn Hall
arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu wrote:
>
> >> Yes, the stars do move, and they do have proper motions. But
> >> the belt stars are so distant from us that their change in relative
> >> position is imperceptible since the pyramids were built. Modern
> >> star charts give the same positions as in Pharoah's day for
> >> these stars. The passage of time is simply not an issue for these stars.
>
> > astronomy programs (IE Skyglobe, etc) going on to effect more dramatic
> > changes than you speak of?
>
> For the 3 belt stars, they can't be. The belt stars are in the
> same position relative to one another as they were when the pyramids
> were built. Maybe you're talking about precession here -- which makes
> the whole night sky (including the belt stars) rise higher and lower
> relative to the local horizon over the centuries. But this doesn't affect
> the positions of the stars relative to one another, which is due to
> their own proper motions, which in the case of the belt stars is
> imperceptible.
>
> It's like if you drew 3 points on a paper, then raised the paper up and
> down. The position of the 3 points relative to one another doesn't change,
> the only thing that changes is how high up in the air they are.
>
> arm...@vms.cis.pitt.eduYou are assuming that the proper motions have not changed over the time
scale under consideration. We only been measuring these motions
accurately for several 100's of years not 1000's so we really don't
know how much they have changed or not. As stars move through the galaxy
at differing rates they will change their proper motions as they approach
one another etc. Only the ancient astronomers thouught of the distant
stars as unchanging in position. Proper motion and precession are
independent effects.
R. Gaenssmantel
Donn Hall (dh...@mail.elite.net) wrote:
[...]
: You are assuming that the proper motions have not changed over the time
: scale under consideration. We only been measuring these motions
: accurately for several 100's of years not 1000's so we really don't
: know how much they have changed or not. As stars move through the galaxy
: at differing rates they will change their proper motions as they approach
: one another etc. Only the ancient astronomers thouught of the distant
: stars as unchanging in position. Proper motion and precession are
: independent effects.
That is perfectly true, however there's couple of things that need adding.
Firstly with modern technology we can measure quite accurately the distance,
speed and direction of motion of stars. So we can easlily extrapolate
backwards (including possible gravitaional effects).
Secondly, in the same way as - when travelling on a motorway - the scenery
in the distance changes more slowly the the the bushes on the hard shoulder,
those far away stars move by so small angles that it becomes negligebble. I'm
sure there are some records in an astronomical library which can tell you
the distances, speeds and directions of those stars. Give it a quick
calculation (without gravitational effects) and see how large the angular
change is as seen from our planet (you'll be surprised!). A quick check how
large the gravtational forces would have to be to offset this by only 1% should
give you an idea if the star closest to there could actually really influence
that.
Closer stars would have certainly changed their position considerably (unless
their direction is exactly away from the earth).
Ralf
--
Rodney Small
I've now looked into this issue a bit, and find the following. First,
in the 1965 book "L'Architettura Delle Piramide Menfite", two Italian
archaeologists -- Vito Maragioglio and Celeste Rinaldi -- state that the
azimuth of the Second Pyramid relative to the Great Pyramid is 223
degrees. Based on an illustration that Adrian Gilbert and Robert Bauval
show at plate 7 following page 134 of "The Orion Mystery", I have measured
the current azimuth of the star that supposedly represents the Second
Pyramid (Al Nilam, or Epsilon Orionis) relative to the star that
supposedly represents the Great Pyramid (Al Nitak, or Zeta Orionis) as 217
degrees; i.e., Al Nilam is somewhat to the southeast of where it would be
if it currently was at the exact azimuth that the Second Pyramid is to the
Great Pyramid. Accordingly, if the proper motion of Al Nilam for the last
several thousand years has been in a southeasterly direction relative to
Al Nitak, in 10,500 BC Al Nilam could have been at an azimuth of 223
degrees relative to Al Nitak. However, the Yale Bright Star catalogue
indicates that the opposite is true. According to this catalogue, Al
Nilam has no proper motion, and the proper motion of Al Nitak is to the
southeast. Therefore, assuming this has been the case for the past 12,500
years, in 10,500 BC Al Nilam's azimuth relative to Al Nitak would have
been less than 217 degrees, making the correlation between those two stars
and the two Great Pyramids less exact than it is now, not more exact.
I don't know how definitive this analysis is both because I'm not sure
that I have measured the current azimuth of Al Nilam relative to Al
Nitak accurately, and because I'm not sure that the current proper motions
of Al Nilam and Al Nitak are what they were in the past. Does anyone have
a better way of determining the relative azimuth of Al Nilam and Al Nitak
12,500 years ago? If so, the relative azimuth of Mintaka (Delta Orionis),
which supposedly represents the Third Pyramid, might also be determined.
I did not attempt to determine the relative position of Mintaka
12,500 years ago because I have conflicting figures on its proper motion
-- two sources say that it is southeasterly, but one says +.009 per year
in right ascension and -.003 per year in declination, while the other says
+.001 and -.001, respectively. Does anyone know which of these sets of
figures are more accurate? Thanks.
Charlie Rigano
Stephen Tonkin <as...@aegis1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Charlie Rigano <cri...@bdm.com> writes
>>>The stars do move. They have proper motion. Did you take this
>>>into account when you plotted the star chart?
>>>
>>>I am only curious?
Steve,
I wrote a rather long post identifying the star atlas that
I used and the map for the pyramids. I found the closest
match and identified how far off in miles the pyramids are
from the locations the stars would have put them in.
I do not know the name for the projection but it has north
and south coming to a point.
Charlie
Charlie Rigano
dmpa...@clark.net (David M. Palmer) wrote:
>arm...@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>
>>> Then on what grounds or data were the programmers for any of the
>>> astronomy programs (IE Skyglobe, etc) going on to effect more dramatic
>>> changes than you speak of?
>
>>For the 3 belt stars, they can't be. The belt stars are in the
>>same position relative to one another as they were when the pyramids
>>were built. Maybe you're talking about precession here -- which makes
>>the whole night sky (including the belt stars) rise higher and lower
>>relative to the local horizon over the centuries. But this doesn't affect
>>the positions of the stars relative to one another, which is due to
>>their own proper motions, which in the case of the belt stars is
>>imperceptible.
>
>>It's like if you drew 3 points on a paper, then raised the paper up and
>>down. The position of the 3 points relative to one another doesn't change,
>>the only thing that changes is how high up in the air they are.
>
>40 or 50 degrees or so. The distances between the stars, and the 'bend
>angle' as you go from star A to star B to star C don't change, but the
>position angle of the line between two stars does. (e.g. if the line
>from Rigel to Bellatrix is currently 5 degrees East of North, at other
>times in the 26000 year precession cycle it may be 25 degrees East of
>North, or 15 degrees West of North). The stars don't move, but North
>does.
>--
> David Palmer
> dmpa...@clark.net
> http://www.clark.net/pub/dmpalmer/
the stars doesn't change. They don't match the pyramid
locations today and they didn't match the pyramid
locations in 2600 BC or 10,000 BC. Their relation to
north is immaterial.
Charlie
Frank Joseph Yurco
Dear Adrian,
I just finished reading Mr. Bauval's and your volume, The Orion Mystery,
and I feel that while there were things that were missed and a few misinterpre-
tations, the overall thesis was interesting and did reflect reality. It is
certainly true, that the early Egyptians did have a concept of the dead king
being raised to join Orion, the star associated with Osiris. This explains,
partly, the north placed entrances to the pyramids, starting with Djoser's.
Earlier, things are less certain, as mastabas of Dynasties I-II had entrances
from other than north.
I also agree that the Pyramid Texts are very important, and are quite laden
with references to the circumpolar stars, and the star Orion, and what you
have called the star funerary cult. I think though, that Mr. Bauval missed
the point to the Story of Khufu and the Magicians. That story is a subtle
critique of Khufu and his quest, and by stating that the answer will be found
with the three children of the Sun-god, indeed, I think we have the answer
as to when the solar cult displaced the star cult. This story marks the
end of Dynasty IV as the terminus of the stellar cult and the Vth Dynasty
as the start of the solar cult. Note that one reason the Vth Dynasty pharaohs
spent fewer resources on building their pyramids, was that they each built
large solar temples, some of which still remain, as at Abu Ghurab. Those
solar temples were centered on the benben, a short, squat obelisk. I think
your colleague Mr. Bauval had a good idea about the possible origin of the
benben, as a meteorite that fel to earth and was partly preserved. It is
also true that iron was attested in early Egypt, but that it all was meteoric
iron. Note that the Middle Egyptian story of the Shipwrecked Sailor also
features a falling star, that devasted the magic serpent's family on the
Island of the Ka. That suggests that the Egyptians were cognizant of the
falling of meteors.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
Egyptologist
--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
darylb
In article <320DDB...@mail.elite.net>, Donn Hall <dh...@mail.elite.net>
wrote:
> scale under consideration. We only been measuring these motions
> accurately for several 100's of years not 1000's so we really don't
> know how much they have changed or not. As stars move through the galaxy
> at differing rates they will change their proper motions as they approach
> one another etc. Only the ancient astronomers thouught of the distant
> stars as unchanging in position. Proper motion and precession are
> independent effects.
I may be way off base here but I don't think precession and proper motion
will have a big effect here. What I do think is that the projection used
could make a WORLD of difference. Is it equal declination, stereographic
etc. My best guess would be stereographic as that was invented by
Hiparchus and would be of the era although likely after the pyramids were
built. However it retains R.A. and declination and so constelations appear
as they look. If *I* had to chance a guess that would be the projection
(what you see is what you get). I would bet that's what the egyptians
would do (stereographic - what you see is what you get). I would say if it
fails this test the theory is either crap or the pyramid site director was
underpaid. 8^)
Frank Doernenburg
-A6644@DO2
Hi!
ST>I am still curious to know what projection you guys (and everyone else
ST>arguing about this) are using.
Why use projections? The Egyptians were never great astronomers, I know of no star map or star chart ever found. Projections are only interesting if you have a global star chart and you try to project something down.
Nevertheless there is a very simple way to chart specific constellations without any technical gimmicks, and you can try this method out for yourself.
Just use your hands!
If you stretch your arm, a small finger covers about a degree of sky, a thumb 2 deg, the fingers of a palm 5 deg, a fist 8 deg and the fingers of a stretched hand about 20 deg. You can measure the distances of stars from a fixed point, may be the
"Chufu"-star in the belt and note the results in fingers. I tried it out last winter, the method is simple and very accurate, you can get the positions of all bright stars of Orion and the Hyades in about 10 minutes.
With this method you will get a "look alike" map of the sky and you need not to worry about "skewed cylindrical" or whatever maps.
So if the egyptians had tried to rebuild heaven on earth, they had the method. I used this method to find out if the wrong placed pyramids (if they had tryed to rebuild Orion) could be explained with measurement errors. Sorry, no bonus, I could
"chart" Orion with this method with less than 1/2 deg. error at each star, but the pyramids are located 3 deg, 5 deg. and 40 deg. away from their "star representatives" when measured from the Cheops pyramid (and even farther away if measured from
another "central projection point").
Even worse is the error in the distance, the red and bent pyramid are three times as far as their star parents, and so is Nebka's. Even Djedefres is twice as far away than it should be.
Bye,
FD
Anti Christ
fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu says...
>Dear Adrian,
>I just finished reading Mr.Bauval's and your volume, The Orion Mystery,
***great leap forward for egyptology.
well done frank, now have a look at "Keeper of Genesis"
best wishes
kaman.